Re: [Uta] Port 465

[Chris Newman <[e-mail]>]

--On March 7, 2014 5:33:24 -0500 "Salz, Rich" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Some info.  It's a pub-sub protocol for limited multicast used by cisco
> routers.
>
> 
http://www.idonotes.com/IdoNotes/idonotes.nsf/dx/08172006023221PMCMIQT4.htm 
(note the date tho)
> 
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios/12_2/ip/configuration/guide/fipr_c/1cfssm.html

Here's the current text on this topic in draft-newman-email-deep:

----
   IANA is asked to assign an alternate usage of port 465 in addition to
   the current assignment using the following template ([RFC6335]):
...
   This is a one time procedural exception to the rules in RFC 6335.
   This requires explicit IESG approval and does not set a precedent.
   Historically, port 465 was briefly registered as the "smtps" port.
   This registration made no sense as the SMTP transport MX
   infrastructure has no way to specify a port so port 25 is always
   used.  As a result, the registration was revoked and was subsequently
   reassigned to a different service.  In hindsight, the "smtps"
   registration should have been renamed or reserved rather than
   revoked.  Unfortunately, some widely deployed mail software
   interpreted "smtps" as "submissions" [RFC6409] and used that port for
   email submission by default when an end-user requests security during
   account setup.  If a new port is assigned for the submissions
   service, email software will either continue with unregistered use of
   port 465 (leaving the port registry inaccurate relative to de-facto
   practice and wasting a well-known port), or confusion between the de-
   facto and registered ports will cause harmful interoperability
   problems that will deter use of TLS for message submission.  The
   authors believe both of these outcomes are less desirable than a wart
   in the registry documenting real-world usage of a port for two
   purposes.  Although STARTTLS-on-port-587 has deployed, it has not
   replaced deployed use of implicit TLS submission on port 465.
----

I welcome discussion and socialization to port registry folks.

		- Chris